JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this appeal the appellants have challenged judgment dated 31-12-1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby they have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34, I P,C and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs, 3,000 each, and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution story emerging from the evidence on record is that on 1-7-1991 at 10 10 p. m. Shankar Singh, Constable No, 94, PW 5 posted at Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, received telephone call from Dy, Superintendent of Police Daljit Singh that he was informed on telephone by one Hardyal Singh from village Dharsani that one Babu Ram had been shot dead and injured by someone. On receipt of this information Shankar Singh PW 5 recorded daily diary report No 28 Ex. PCX There-after, ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 alongwith ASI Birbal Ram PW 15, Shankar Singh PW 5 and two more constables proceeded to the place of occurrence at village Dharsani in Jeep No. HIB 88. On reaching village Dharsani, they noticed that Babu Ram, who had received injuries on his left arm and on his abdomen, was being removed to the hospital on a cot by the villagers. ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 recorded his statement under section 154, Cr. P. C. and sent it through Kuldip Singh Constable No. 300 to Police Station Sadar Bilaspur for registration of a case at 12.45 a, m on 2 7-1991, on the basis of which F. I. R. No 94/91 was recorded at 3.00 a, m,, which is Ex. PS/1 on the record. 3. In his statement Ex PS Babu Ram gave the full account of the incident that on his return to his house from his work at 8.00 p. m. he found that his wife had gone to fetch water from Kakkarughat Nala. At about 9.00 p. m he also proceeded towards Kakkarughat to see his wife and when he reached near a Simble tree, he found appellants Jeet Ram, Member, Balak Ram, Compounder and Jagdish Kumar, Peon Veterinary Hospital at Rishikesh, sitting on a parapet on the left side of the road , indulging in vulgar and filthy talk. At about 9.00 p. m he also proceeded towards Kakkarughat to see his wife and when he reached near a Simble tree, he found appellants Jeet Ram, Member, Balak Ram, Compounder and Jagdish Kumar, Peon Veterinary Hospital at Rishikesh, sitting on a parapet on the left side of the road , indulging in vulgar and filthy talk. He told them that if they had mothers and sisters in their houses they would not have talked in such a vulgar and filthy manner. In the meantime, his wife reached on the spot with a pitcher of water and seeing her they started talking more loudly. Thereafter they induldged in wordy duel with Babu Ram and then appellants Jit Ram and Balak Ram asked appellant Jagdish Kumar to fire at him and to not mind the consequences. At this appellant Jagdish Kumar fired at Babu Ram with the gun which he w as holding at that time and the shot thereof hit Babu Ram below his navel after piercing through his left wrist. On this, his wife raised alarm and called his brother Prem Lal PW 14, who reached on the spot besides number of villagers. Seeing them the appellants fled away from the scene of occurrence taking alongwith them the gun used in the commission of crime, Babu Ram has further stated that with the intention to kill him, appellant Jagdish Kumar had fired at him with the gun at the instance of appellants Jit Ram and Balak Ram, as a result of which he received injuries in his stomach and arm, and was having severe pain According to him, he was being carried to Bilaspur on a cot when he met ASI Kaur Chand on the way to whom he got his statement recorded. 4. The statement of Babu Ram bears his right thumb-impression, which he had appended after it was read over and explained to him, as stated in the endorsement made therein by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16. Thereafter Babu Ram injured was sent to District Hospital, Bilaspur in an ambulance with a request for his medical examination by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 vide his letter Ex. PL, on which time and date recorded is 12.30 p.m. on 2-7-1991. On reaching hospital, Babu Ram was medically examined by Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bilaspur Dr. Rama Singh PW 3, who had issued medico legal certificate Ex. PK. PL, on which time and date recorded is 12.30 p.m. on 2-7-1991. On reaching hospital, Babu Ram was medically examined by Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bilaspur Dr. Rama Singh PW 3, who had issued medico legal certificate Ex. PK. On her advice, injured Babu Ram was X-rayed and report thereof Ex. PM was prepared. On the same day at 5.00 a. m, Babu Ram succummed to his injuries and autopsy on his dead body was conducted by Doctor N. K, Verma PW 4, who gave his post-mortem report Ex. PN. The clothes of deceased Babu Ram Ex. P-l and P-2f and pellets Ex. P-11 (23 in number) extracted from the dead body of deceased Babu Ram were put in separate parcels and handed over to the police, . 5. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16, who inspected the spot, prepared the site plan Ex PX and took into possession blood stained earth, empty cartridges and broken pieces of pitcher vide memos Ex. PE, PC and PD in the presence of Mast Ram PW 2 and Hardyal Singh PW 9. ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 also searched the house of appellant Jagdish Kumar and took into possession 12 bore gun Ex. P-6 vide memo Ex. PF, unused six cartridges and licence of the gun vide Ex. PG and PH. The case property was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla on 27-7-J991 through Harish Chand, Constable No. 64 PW 6. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is on record as Ex. PD and PV. On completion of investigation, challan was put up in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who tried it and ultimately convicted and sentenced the appellants under section 302 read with section 34, I P. C. by the impugned judgment. 6. PD and PV. On completion of investigation, challan was put up in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who tried it and ultimately convicted and sentenced the appellants under section 302 read with section 34, I P. C. by the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses, out of whom Kamla Devi PW 1, the wife of deceased Babu Ram, is the eye-witness, Prem Lai PW 14, the younger brother of deceased Babu Ram, was first to reach the place of occurrence after hearing the cries of Kamla Devi PW It to whom deceased Babu Ram as well as Kamla Devi PW 1 had given the names of the appellants as assailants and also that appellant Jagdish Kumar had fired at Babu Ram through his gun at the instance of appellants Balak Ram and Jit Ram. Karala Devi PW 1 has fully corroborated the statement of deceased Babu Ram Ex. PS recorded under section 154, Cr P. C, She has stated that finding the appellants hurling filthy abuses, her husband deceased Babu Ram told appellant Jit Ram that, "Member Sahib Dhee Behan Ko Dekh Lena Chaihiae". On this, appellant Jit Ram told appellant Jagdish Kumar that he should fire and what could happen to this Dumna (low caste) Thereafter, appellant Balak Ram lit torch towards Babu Ram and appellant Jagdish Kumar fired from his gun, which hit Babu Ram on his left arm and below navel, as a result of which he started bleeding and fell down. Seeing this, Kamla Devi ran towards her husband, as a result of which her pitcher fell down and she raised alarm and called her Devar Prem Lal PW 14 that his brother had been inflicted a gun shot, According to her, on her cries Prem Lal PW 14, Hardayal Singh PW 9, Mast Ram PW 2 and number of villagers reached on the spot and seeing them the appellants ran away from the spot. She has further stated that when her husband was being taken to hospital at Bilaspur, at a place named Chhat, police party met them and statement of Babu Ram was recorded, which was thumb marked by him. She has further stated that when her husband was being taken to hospital at Bilaspur, at a place named Chhat, police party met them and statement of Babu Ram was recorded, which was thumb marked by him. In the meantime, ambulance had also reached on the spot, in which Babu Ram was taken to the hospital In the cross-examination her statement that she had witnessed the occurrence and had identified the appellants whom she knew earlier, the appellant Jit Ram in his capacity as Member Gram Panchayat and appellant Balak Ram and Jagdish Kumar as employees of Veterinary Dispensary, Rishikesh, has not been shattered. She has specifically denied that it was pitch dark when she was coming back from water source and voluntarily stated that it was dusk time. When she was confronted with her application Ex PA, which she had submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur for cancellation of bail of appellant Jit Ram after he was enlarged on bail by the High Court, she has denied its contents at portion A’ to ‘A’ wherein it is stated that gun shot was fired at by appellant Jit Ram but she has admitted the remaining contents of the application which she had got written from the Document Writer and submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, as appellant Jit Ram after his release on bail had threatened her that if she makes statement against him he would do away with her life. 7. The statement of Kamla Devi PW 1 on material aspects is fully corroborated by Prem Lal PW 14. He has stated that after making his injured brother Babu Ram to lie on the cot near the house of Mast Ram, he rushed to the house of Onkar Singh to give information of the incident to the Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur on telephone and on his way met Hardayal Singh PW 9, who accompanied him and made telephone call, whereas, he remained standing outside the room of Onkar Singh He is also witness to inquest report Ex PJ and PJ/L In his cross-examination he has reiterated that on reaching the place of occurrence, he saw the appellants running in different directions from a distance of 4 to 5 feet. According to him, it was moon-lit night. He has denied portion A’ to A of his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C Ex. According to him, it was moon-lit night. He has denied portion A’ to A of his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C Ex. DC that his brother was inclined to go to Kakkarughat so that his wife may not feel scared due to darkness 8. Mast Ram PW 2, who is cousin of deceased Babu Ram, had also reached on the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of Kamla Devi PW 1 that her husband had been fired at. According to him on reaching the spot he saw that Babu Ram had received two fire arm injuries on the left fore arm and left side of the stomach. After arranging for a cot and bringing injured Babu Ram near his house, he asked him whether he should inform the Member Panchayat of the incident then Babu Ram told him that since attack on him was engineered by the Member Gram Panchayat, namely, appellant Jit Ram, who had exhorted Jagdish Kumar to fire at him, he would not come. This witness has further stated that deceased Babu Ram had told him that appellant Jagdish Kumar had fired at him in f he torch light thrown by appellant Balak Ram, He has also corroborated the account of the occurrence given by deceased Babu Ram in his statement Ex. PS and Kamla Devi PW I. He has admitted his signatures on memos Ex PC, PD and PE whereby blood stained earth, empty cartridge and broken pieces of pitcher were taken into possession by the police. He has identified empty cartridge Ex P,3 as the one which was taken into possession from the spot vide memo Ex. PC. According to him, in the morning of 2-7-1991 gun Ex. P-6 was taken into possession vide Ex PF and six unused cartridges vide memo Ex. PG from the house of Jagdish Kumar. He has specifically stated that the police had visited the spot of occurrence at 12 00 in the night of occurrence accompanied by him, Hardayal Singh PW 9 and Mohinder Singh and took into possession empty cartridge, blood stained earth and broken pieces of pitcher with the help of light of headlights of Jeep. 9. He has specifically stated that the police had visited the spot of occurrence at 12 00 in the night of occurrence accompanied by him, Hardayal Singh PW 9 and Mohinder Singh and took into possession empty cartridge, blood stained earth and broken pieces of pitcher with the help of light of headlights of Jeep. 9. Another witness Roshan Lal PW 8 has also supported the prosecution to the extent that on receiving information of incident from Prem Lal and Hardayal Singh he reached on the spot and found deceased Babu Ram lying injured on the road with his head resting in the lap of his wife Kamla Devi and on his asking deceased Babu Ram told him how he received the injuries at the hands of the appellants. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he was convicted by Sessions Court for attempt to murder Hargovind but voluntarily stated that lateron he was acquitted by the High Court. He has denied that appellant Jit Ram had appeared as witness in that case, 10. One more witness Hardayal Singh PW 9 met Prem Lal PW 14 and accompanied him to the house of Onkar Singh for making telephone call to the police. When he stated that Prem Lai did not reveal to him the names of the assailants of his brother Babu Ram, at the request of the Public Prosecutor he has declared hostile, as he had resiled from his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. He has admitted that he had informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police that Babu Ram had been fired at and injured by someone on the evening of 1-7-1991 and thereafter came back to the place where he was lying at the curve of the road near his house and was crying According to him, he has in his senses at that time but was not talking. As per his statement, he accompanied deceased Babu Ram to the hospital and saw him being carried in an Ambulance, which had met on the way. He has denied portions A to A, B to B and C to C of his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C but he has admitted that he had visited the spot with the police and blood stained earth Ex. P 4 vide memo Ex, PE, broken pieces of pitcher Ex, P-5 vide memo Ex. He has denied portions A to A, B to B and C to C of his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C but he has admitted that he had visited the spot with the police and blood stained earth Ex. P 4 vide memo Ex, PE, broken pieces of pitcher Ex, P-5 vide memo Ex. PD were taken into possession by the police in his presence and that of Mast Ram PW 2. He has denied that police had also taken into possession an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PC and his signatures thereon which are encircled in red and marked P, whereas, he has admitted his signatures on Memos Ex. PD and PE, which according to him were pre-pared by the police on the third day at his shop and his signatures were got thereon. In his further cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, he has stated that it was pitch-dark night, and he and Mast Ram were taken to the place of occurrence by the police at about 3.30/4.00 a, m 11. On reaching District Hospital, Bilaspur injured Babu Ram was examined by Doctor Rama Singh PW 3, Medical Officer of the hospital at 2 25 a m. on 2 7-1991 on the application Ex. PL of ASI Kaur Singh PW 16. She has brought on record Medico Legal Certificate Ex PK, X-ray form Ex. PM, X-rays PM/2 to PM/4, which were taken under her supervision and X-ray report Ex, PM/1. Her observations are as under :— “Patient was fully conscious. Pulse less, BP less. Injuries: 1. Wound on the anterior aspect left forearm extending from forearm upper 3rd to wrist joint All the tendons and muscles were exposed skin was peeled off. Movements of fingers painful. 2. There was lacerated wound on the lower abdomen just below umblieus towards right about 2 cm. x 1 cm. Margin irregular. Bleeding was present from the wound The surrounding area was charred black in colour. Skin was burnt around the wound. 3. There were multiple punctate wounds about 7 in numbers. Surrounding the injury No. 2 Advised X-ray abdomen AP and X-ray left forearm lateral AP. x 1 cm. Margin irregular. Bleeding was present from the wound The surrounding area was charred black in colour. Skin was burnt around the wound. 3. There were multiple punctate wounds about 7 in numbers. Surrounding the injury No. 2 Advised X-ray abdomen AP and X-ray left forearm lateral AP. X-ray No. 1426 dated 2-7-1991 abdomen showed multiple radio opaque shadows on the right side of abdomen Left forearm X-ray showed fracture of lower 3rd of shaft of ulna left side with multiple radio opaque shadows in the left forearms. These shadow were of uniform size. The nature of injury was gun shot. Duration within 12 hours " 12. According to Doctor Rama Singh, the injuries found on the person of Babu Ram could be caused by gun Ex. P-6 and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. She agreed with the following observations of Dr Modi contained in Para 3 at page 212 of his Text Book on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 10th Edition, 1949 :— "Distance of the Firearm —If a firearm is discharged very close to the body or in actual contract, subcutaneous tissues over an area of two or three inches round the wound of entrance are lacerated and the surrounding skin is usually scorched and blackened by smoke and tattooed with unburnt grains of gunpowder. The adjacent hair is singed, and the clothes covering the part are burnt from the flame of the gas If the powder is smokeless there will be no blackening of the skin, but there may be a greyish or white deposit on the skin round the wound. No blackening or scorching is found, if the firearm is discharged from a distance of more than four feet. Moreover, these signs may be absent even when the weapon is pressed tightly against the skin of the body, as the gases of the explosion and the flame, smoke and particles of gunpowder with all follow the track of the bullet in the body " In her cross-examination Doctor Rama Singh has stated that Babu Ram was also examined by one surgeon, whose name she did not remember. She has denied that statement of Babu Ram was recorded by her and expressed her ignorance whether some other doctor had done so. 13. She has denied that statement of Babu Ram was recorded by her and expressed her ignorance whether some other doctor had done so. 13. Autopsy on the dead body of Babu Ram was conducted by Doctor N K Verma PW 4, Registrar, Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla and his post-mortem report is Ex PM According to him the post-mortem examination revealed as under :— "The body was brought by the police and information furnished was died of gun shot injuries He was an average built 5 feet 7 inches in length having full beared, wearing white shirt-blood stained, blackish vest sleeveless, blood stained Pajama, Rigor mortis not fully developed Postmortem staining back purple in patches. Dressed left forearm and anterior abdominal wall, soaked with blood. Needle brick marks right fore, arm and cubital fossa right total 5 in numbers. Cranium and spinal cord were normal, Thorax was normal Both lungs were normal On cut section extrudes scanty dark coloured fluid blood, Heart both chambers contained scanty dark coloured fluid blood. Large vessles were normal having same type of blood. On the anterior abdominal wall the injuries found were :— 1. Perforating injury slightly directed downwards and inwards situated 7 cm below and 2 cm. on right side of umblicus and 8 cm medial and 2 cm above right anterior superior eliac spine size 2 cm, x 1.5 cm. at its apparent right end two openings separated by skin tags The upper edge was inverted and irregular the lower was everted and irregular. The injury was accompanied by redish irregular abrasion 4 cm. x 4 cm. range. 2. Five abrasions as shown in the figure black coloured size 0.5 cm. depth upto sub cutanus tissue. 3. Three abrasions as shown in figure black coloured size 0.5 cm depth upto sub cutaouus tissue. 4. Two abrasions as shown in figure black coloured 1 cm. x 0.5 cm surrounded by abrased reddish irregular area 5 cm. x 4 cm. Abdominal walls irregular tear approximately corresponding to injury No i edges congested free dark coloured fluid blood 25 to 3 Ltrs, in peritoneal cavity, Anterior wall of stomach having six perforated injuries as shown in the figure which were irregular size 0 25 cm. to 0,5 cm, irregular inverted edges, Stomach contained mucoid content watery. 4 pallets recovered from the stomach. Stomach wall pale, congested inner surface around the injuries. to 0,5 cm, irregular inverted edges, Stomach contained mucoid content watery. 4 pallets recovered from the stomach. Stomach wall pale, congested inner surface around the injuries. On posterior aspect of stomach 4 irregular averted exit wounds 0 25 x 0 25 cm. Greater momentum was haemorrhagic congested looking matted. Eight pallets removed from the greater omen-tum, Small intestine apart from a segment of 8 inches which was congested the rest was pale having to injuries Large intestine pale having fecal matter Liver spleen, kidney normal Bladder normal, pale having 30 CC clear urine. Injury in the left forearm 17 cm. long 4 cm, broad at thiner eminence. Skin edges here charred black Wrist bone medial side prominent and projecting widest part here 4 cm. sub cutanuus tissue adjoining wrist were embeded 11 pallets which were removed, Ulna fractured at junction upper 2/3rd and lower i/3rd flexor tendons exposed muscles exposed brownish red irregular brownish edges in colour. Major part of skin lost 2 flaps one 5 cm. x 3 cm. other 3 cm x 2 cm attached proximally and medial aspect widest area 5 cm. Person died of shock haemorrhagic and neurogenic as a result of gun shot injuries." 14. Doctor N K. Verma has stated that the time between the death and post-mortem was less than 12 hours, and injuries found on the person of deceased Babu Ram could be caused with a single gun shot from gun Ex, P-6 and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. He had handed over to police shirt Ex P-l, Buniyan Ex P 2 and pallets Ex. P-11 (23 in number) taken out from the body of deceased Babu Ram and put in parcel Ex P-i3atthe time of postmortem examination. In his cross examination he has stated that injuries found on the wrist of Babu Ram could have been caused from a range of 1 to 3 feet He has further admitted "that as a result of gun shot injury from a close range the carbon particles emitted from the gun form blackned portion on the part of the body which is proximate to the weapon and on which the injury is caused". 15. 15. The investigation of the case was conducted by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16, who accompanied by ASI Birbal PW 15 and other police officials had reached on the spot after receiving telephonic message from Dy. Superintendent of Police on the night intervening 1st/2nd July 1991. He has stated that on reaching village Dhararsani he noticed that injured Babu Ram was being removed on a cot (Charpai) by the inhabitants of the village. He noticed injuries on left wrist and abdomen (Nabhi) of Babu Ram. who was conscious at that time and he recorded his statement Ex. PS on which Babu Ram put his thumb-impression after its contents were read over and explained to him, for which he had also made endorsement thereon. ASI Kaur Chand also inspected the place of occurrence during the same night and prepared rough site plan Ex. PX on the basis of information gathered at the spot, Blood stained earth, pieces of broken pitcher, empty of 12 bore cartridge were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PC, PD and PE in the presence of witnesses Hardayal Singh and Mast Ram, whose signatures on these memos have also been identified by him. On the following morning he arrested the appellants and on search of the house of appellant Jagdish, recovered 12 bore gun (S. B.) Ex. P-6 vide memo Ex. PF unused cartridges, out of which three cartridges Ex P-7 to P-9 were seized vide memo Ex. PJ and the other three cartridges were sent for the purpose of examination. Licence of the gun Ex PH/I was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH. In cross-examination he has admitted that portion A to A and B to B in the Statement Ex DA of Kamla Devi PW-1 was recorded correctly by him. Similarly statement Ex DB of Mast Ram PW 2 and statement of Prem Lal PW -14 including portion A to A were also recorded correctly without any omission or addition. Statement of Roshan Lal PW 8 could be recorded on 1-8-1993 as he was not available after the occurrence. Similarly statement Ex DB of Mast Ram PW 2 and statement of Prem Lal PW -14 including portion A to A were also recorded correctly without any omission or addition. Statement of Roshan Lal PW 8 could be recorded on 1-8-1993 as he was not available after the occurrence. According to him, it was dark night and he had inspected the place of occurrence with the aid of torch and lantern, which was provided by Mast Ram PW 2 The distance of the house of deceased Babu Ram and the place of occurrence is given as 70 yards He has stated that during the investigation it was found that deceased was fired at from a distance of 15 feet and after receiving the injuries he ran away and fell down at a distance of another 15 feet as the blood was found at point which was at a distance of 30 feet from the para pet wherefrom the appellant had fired at. According him Babu Ram proclaimed that he was illiterate and had put right thumb impression on his statement Ex PS. He had also recorded the statement of Kamla Devi PW-1 and Prem Lal Pw-14 on the spot immediately after recording the statement of Babu Ram. 16. ASI Birbal Ram PW 15 had also partly investigated the case by preparing inquest report Ex. PJ and PJ/1. According to him, he had take into possession two parcles from Muharrar Head Constable Bhagwant Singh vide memo Ex. PR and those were again handed over to the Muharrar Head Constable Bhagwant Singh, Head Constable PW 11 who was working as Muharrar Head Constable, had recorded F. I. R. Ex PS/1 on receipt of statement Ex. PS, He has further stated that ASI Kaur Chand deposited four sealed parcels with him which ho had kept in the Malkhana. Two sealed parties brought by Constable Sham Lal PW 10 from Doctor N. K Verma PW 3 were also handed over to this witness, which he had passed on to ASI Birbal Ram PW 15. who took them into possession vide memo Ex. PR. He has specifically stated that during the period these parcles remained with him, these were not tampered with by any one. According to him, special report was sent to the Magistrate at 9.30 a.m. on 2-7-1991, as mentioned in the Rapat Roznamcha. who took them into possession vide memo Ex. PR. He has specifically stated that during the period these parcles remained with him, these were not tampered with by any one. According to him, special report was sent to the Magistrate at 9.30 a.m. on 2-7-1991, as mentioned in the Rapat Roznamcha. This witness had further handed over the case property to Head Constable Arjun SmghPW 12 when he took over the charge of Muharrar Head Constable from him, which fact has been acknowledged by Arjun Singh PW 12 who has further stated that he sent the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla through Constable Harish Kumar on 27-7-1991. Reports Ex. PU and PV of Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla were received by Inspector Anant Ram PW-13, who had prepared the challan of the case and presented it in the Court 17. The defence of the appellants, as stated by them in their statements under section 313, Cr. P. C. is denial simpliciter. Appellant St Ram in reply to Question No. 28 has stated that the witnesses have deposed against him falsely and further added in reply to Question No.29 that Babu Ram deceased was inimical to him since he was having litigation with one Han Singh, whom he was supporting being member of the warn Similarly, appellant Balak Ram has denied his presence on the spot and according to him witnesses wanted to falsely implicate Jit Ram therefore they were also roped in. He has stated that he was not knowing the family of Kamla Devi Third appellant Jagdish Kumar though in reply to Question No, 19 has denied that during the search of his house gun Ex P-6 and six live cartridges including Ex. P-7 to P-9 and gun licence Ex. PH/i were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PF, PG and PH, yet added that, "Police took only my licence in possession with gun and cartridges", in reply to Question No. 28 he has stated that the witnesses have deposed falsely under pressure of police and because of enmity with appellant Jit Ram. The appellants have also produced six defence witnesses. 18. Brij Mohan, Petition Writer DW-1 has stated that he had written Ex, PA at the instance of Kamla Devi, who was accompanied by her Devar. According to him portions A to A, B to B and C to C of Ex. The appellants have also produced six defence witnesses. 18. Brij Mohan, Petition Writer DW-1 has stated that he had written Ex, PA at the instance of Kamla Devi, who was accompanied by her Devar. According to him portions A to A, B to B and C to C of Ex. PA were read over and explained to her and after admitting the contents thereof to be correct, she had put her signatures, But in the cross-examination he has admitted that he is making his statement from his memory. He has further stated that Ex PA was not written in his own language but in the language of Kamla Devi. Amar Nath, Reader to. S. D.M. Ghumarwin DW 2 has produced the record of Case No. 8/4 of 1988 titled State v. Hari Singh and Babu Ram, decided on 2-4-1991 and Hans Raj, Record Keeper, Sessions Court, Bilaspur DW 3 has produced record of file No. 15/10 of 1991, titled Babu Ram v. Hari Singh, decided on 24 11-1993. Shri Gian Chand, Advocate of Ghumarwin DW 4 after seeing the record of case file No. 15/10 of 1991 has stated that original revision petition which was drafted by him, bears his signatures as well as that of Babu Ram, certified copy whereof is Ex DA on record. He has also identified the signatures of Babu Ram on stay application, power of attorney and Tal-wana, certified copies whereof are Ex. DB, DC and DD on the record. Roshan Lal, Senior Assistant, S. D. M. Court, Ghumarwin DW 5 has identified the signatures of Babu Ram on the statement made by him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, certified copy whereof is Ex, PE Chandu Ram, Naib-Tehsildar, Sadar, Bilaspur DW 6 has stated that he had visited the spot on 23-5-1989 and recorded the statement of Babu Ram, who had signed it in his presence, certified copy whereof is Ex, DF on record. 19. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The first point urged by Mr, M, S. Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is that as stated in the F. I R. Ex. PS/1, the incident had taken place at about 9.15 p. m., when it was dark, therefore, it was not possible for anybody including Kamla Devi PW 1 and deceased Babu Ram to have identified the real culprits, Mr. PS/1, the incident had taken place at about 9.15 p. m., when it was dark, therefore, it was not possible for anybody including Kamla Devi PW 1 and deceased Babu Ram to have identified the real culprits, Mr. Chandel has further submitted that it was for this reason that Hardayal Singh PW-9, immediately after the incident had informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police on telephone that Babu Ram had been fired at by gun by some one, without disclosing the name of any of the appellants. The version of Hardayal Singh PW 9 is further corroborated by Daily Diary Report Ex . PO, which was recorded by Shankar Singh PW 5, According to Mr Chandel, the names of the appellants were introduced lateron after due deliberations, as admittedly the relations between one of them, namely, Jit Ram and deceased Babu Ram were strained, and Balak Ram and Jagdish Kumar were not known to Kamla Devi PW 1, who in portion A to A of her statement Ex. DA under section 161, Cr. P. C had admitted that she had learnt from her brother-in-law and other people that appellant Balak Ram is compounder and Jagdish Kumar is peon somewhere in Rishikesh Further submission of Mr, Chandel is that knowing the loopholes of its case, the prosecution has introduced torch for proving identification of the appellants and it was put in the mouth of Kamla Devi PW 1 that appellant Balak Ram had lit torch towards Babu Ram and appellant Jagdish Kumar fired from his gun, which hit Babu Ram on left arm and below naval, but no such torch has been seized and produced daring the course of the trial without any reasonable explanation for doing so, Another circumstance in support of his argument, as pointed out by Mr. Chandel, is that had the names of the appellants as culprits heen known to Prem Lal, he would have told them to Hardayal Singh for further passing on to Deputy Superintendent of Police on the telephone and if Hardayal Singh had not done so, he would have protested it. Another submission of Mr. Chandel, is that had the names of the appellants as culprits heen known to Prem Lal, he would have told them to Hardayal Singh for further passing on to Deputy Superintendent of Police on the telephone and if Hardayal Singh had not done so, he would have protested it. Another submission of Mr. Chandel is that had Prem Lal PW 14 known that appellant Jit Ram was one of the culprits, who had fired at his brother, he would not have asked him to proceed to the scene of occurrence in his capacity as ward member of the Panchayat, to which appellant Jit Ram had replied that he would come next day and let his brother die, as stated by him 20. The arguments of Mr. Chandel are though attractive but without any substance in the context of evidence on record. There is no clearcut evidence on record to hold that it was so dark at the time of occurrence that it was not possible to identify the culprits, According to Kamla Devi PW 1, it was dusk time ; according to Prem Lal PW-14 it was moonlit night and investigation was conducted in the headlight of the Jeep and according to Kaur Chand PW 16 it was dark night and proceedings were conducted with the aid of torch and lantern. There was no specific suggestion put to Kamla Devi PW-1 that it was so dark that she could not identify the culprits. No doubt the time of the occurrence is 9.30 p, m. but had it been so dark it was not possible for Kamla Devi PW I to go to fetch water from the water source. The day of occurrence being 1st July, 1991 when the sun had set at 19.23 hrs. as per Dharamson Law Diary for 1991, it could not be so dark at 9,30 p m, that deceased Babu Ram and Kamla Devi PW 1 could not identify the appellants when Babu Ram. had entered dialogue with them and addressed appellant Jit Ram specifically and Kamla Devi had heard them talking Both of them knew appellant Jit Ram for the last many years as he was member of their ward of the Panchayat and appellants Balak Ram and Jagdish Kumar, who were the employees in Veterinary Dispensary at Rishikesh, Portion A to A of the statement of Kamla Devi Ex. DA is being read out of the context and it loses its importance when in her statement in the Court she has categorically stated that she knew the appellants earlier, as one of them, namely, Jit Ram was member of their Gram Panchayat and other two were employed in Veterinary Dispensary, Rishikesh where she used to go for medicines for her cattle. She has given the names of the villages of the appellants Jagdish Kumar and Balak Ram correctly. 21. In State of U. P. v. Manohar Lal and others, AIR 198! SO 2073, where the occurrence had taken place at about 5.30 p. m. towards the end of February, the High Court of Allahabad while discarding the evidence of the eye-witnesses and acquitting the accused held that the occurrence must have taken place at about 7.30 p. m, while it was dark and there was no sufficient light to enable the eye-witnesses to identify the assailants. On appeal, the apex Court set aside the acquittal of the accused and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. It was held that all the accused persons were known to the eye-witnesses since prior to the occurrence and even if there was no sufficient light, the accused could have been identified by their voice, by gait and by their features. In the present case as well it has come in evidence that all the three appellants were known to PW 1 Kamla Devi, The appellants had a dialogue with the deceased. Therefore,, it cannot be said that PW 1 Kamla Devi could not have identified the appellants, She had ample opportunity to hear the voice of the appellants and to see their gait and features. 22. Admittedly, there is nothing on the record for which deceased Babu Ram or Kamla Devi PW 1 would falsely implicate these two appellants As stated by appellant Jit Ram and admitted by Kamla Devi PW I, the relations between appellant Jit Ram and deceased Babu Ram were strained for the reason that in the litigation between deceased Babu Ram and one Hari Singh in respect of land, appellant Jit Ram was supporting Hari Singh as member Gram Panchayat. Though Kamla Devi PW 1 has also admitted that deceased Babu Ram two months prior to his death was arrested at the instance of appellant Jit Ram, yet all these circumstances were not enough to falsely implicate appellant Jit Ram and his companions appellants Jagdish Kumar and Balak Rim against whom admittedly deceased Babu Ram and Kara la Devi PW 1 had no grievance. 23. The telephonic message from Deputy Superintendent of Police Daljit Singh was received by Constable Shankar Singh PW 5 at 10.10 p. m., on the basis of which he recorded daily diary report Ex. PCX Thereafter, ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 proceeded in a Jeep to the place of occurrence, which is at a distance of 36 kilometres, as stated by him Finding injured Babu Ram being taken to hospital on a cot, he recorded his statement Ex.. PS at 12,30 a m. in which he gave full account of the incident stating what transpired between him and the appellants before appellant Jagdish Kumar fired at him at the instance of appellant Jit Ram, It cannot be believed, as , suggested on behalf of the appellants, that their names have been introduced lateron after due deliberation because of inimical relations between deceased Babu Ram, Kamla Devi appellant Jit Ram, as deceased Babu Ram was not such an influential person Admittedly, he was only sixth pass, working as labourer, belonged to a scheduled caste (Doomna) and at the relevant time he was lying injured having received firearm injuries on his left arm and below navel The appellants had been specifically named by deceased Babu Ram as well as by Kamla DM PW 1 as assailants, immediately after the occurrence, Even Prem Lal PW 14 who was first to reach the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of Kamla Devi PW 1, has also stated that he had seen the appellants running away from the place of occurrence. -Another witness Mast Ram PW 2, whose house is admittedly nearest to the place of occurrence, has also deposed that on his askance to call Jit Ram member Gram Panchayat, Babu Ram had told him that he would not come because it was at his instance that Jagdish Kumar had fired at him in the torch light thrown by appellant Balak Ram. It is correct that in Ex, PS deceased Babu Ram had not mentioned that appellant Jagdish Kumar had fired at in the torch light thrown by appellant Balak Ram, as stated by Mast Ram PW 2 and Kamla Devi PW 1 in the Court for the first time and said torch was also not taken into possession to be produced in the Court, but this improvement in the statements of these witnesses is not enough to hold that deceased Babu Ram and Kamla Devi PW 1 had not identified the appellants as assailants. It is commonly seen that sometimes close relations of the victim exaggerate their version in their emotional bid to make their case strong and it becomes the duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff. Accordingly, for the same reason a part of the statement of Prem Lal PW 14 that after the occurrence he met appellant Jit Ram and requested him to proceed to the scene of occurrence in his capacity as ward member, to which he had retorted that he would come next day and let his brother die, deserves to be ignored, 24. So far the statement of Hardayal Singh PW 9 in which he has categorically denied that the names of the appellants were told to him as assailants by Prem Lal PW 14 is concerned, it does not inspire confidence in the totality of the facts and circumstances on record. This witness has not supported the prosecution and he was declared hostile and cross examined and in his cross-examination he has admitted that his services were terminated and he was reinstated by the orders of the High Court after a period of eight years. It is clear from the tenor of his statement that he was won over by the appellants, as he has admitted only that part of his statement recorded Under section 161, Cr. P. C. which is innocuous and has denied the remaining part which goes against the appellants. Admittedly, he was associated with the investigation conducted by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 in which incriminating articles were taken into possession on the spot He has admitted his signatures on Ex. P. C. which is innocuous and has denied the remaining part which goes against the appellants. Admittedly, he was associated with the investigation conducted by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 in which incriminating articles were taken into possession on the spot He has admitted his signatures on Ex. PD and PE whereby broken pieces of pitcher and blood stained earth were taken into possession but has denied his signatures on Ex, PC whereby empty cartridge was taken into possession It is correct that this witness has stated that he was only told that some body has injured Babu Ram, which message he passed on to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the telephone from the house of Onkar Singh when Prem Lal PW 14 was standing outside the room It is possible that he had thought it fit not to give the names of assailants in his telephonic message or if he had given the names, the Deputy Superintendent of Police might not have noted them, as he had received the message at odd hours or he might not have passed them on to Constable Shankar Singh PW 5, who had recorded daily diary report Ex. PO. Therefore, non-mentioning of appellants as assailants in Ex. PO is not enough to reject the statement of Babu Ram Ex PS and statements of Kamla Devi PW 1 and Prem Lal PW 14 who had identified the appellants on the spot as assailants and named them as such from the very beginning. Even in the application Ex. PL, which was sent by ASI Kaur Chand to Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bilaspur on 2-7-1991 at 12,30 p. m. for medical examination of Babu Ram. it is mentioned that, "a person known as Jagdish is stated to have fired at Babu Ram with his gun, today on 1-7-1991 at 9.30 p.m. hitting him on his left wrist and naval". In view of the above discussion, we reject the submission of Mr. Chandel that the appellants were not identified on the spot and their names were introduced lateron after due deliberations. 25. The next submission made by Mr. In view of the above discussion, we reject the submission of Mr. Chandel that the appellants were not identified on the spot and their names were introduced lateron after due deliberations. 25. The next submission made by Mr. Chandel is that the statement of Babu Ram Ex PS, which after his death became his dying declaration, is highly improbable and cannot be acted upon for the following reasons :— (i) That it is not proved where this statement was recorded, as according to Hardayal Singh PW 9, when he reached his shop at Rishikesh he saw the police coming in a jeep wherefrom deceased Babu Ram was sent to hospital in an Ambulance, whereas, according to Kamla Devi PW I and Prem Lal PW 14, the police had met them at village Chhat and recorded the statement of Babu Ram who was being taken to Bilaspur on a cot but as per endorsement made on Ex PS, the statement of Babu Ram was recorded at Kakrughat i. e. the place of incident. (ii) That Babu Ram was literate having studied upto 6th class and he used to put his signatures, as stated by Kamla Devi PW 1, Mast Ram PW 2 and proved by Amar Nath DW 2t Hans Raj DW3 and Gian Chand DW 4 from the documents Ex DA to DD but he had put his thumb-impression on Ex. PS, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by these witnesses. On the other hand ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 has categorically stated that Babu Ram did not sign and put his thumb-impression proclaiming that he was illiterate. (iii) That Hardayal Singh PW 9, who was admittedly present at the time police had met injured Babu Ram, who was being taken to Bilaspur, has categorically denied that statement of Babu Ram was recorded by the police before he was taken to District Hospital Bilaspur in an Ambulance. (iv) That as stated by Kamla Devi PW 1 and Prem Lal PW 14 another statement of Babu Ram was recorded in the hospital by two doctors, one male and the other female in the presence of the police, which has been withheld by the prosecution. Doctor Ram a Singh PW 3 has denied having recorded any statement but has shown her ignorance whether it was recorded by some other doctor in the hospital. Doctor Ram a Singh PW 3 has denied having recorded any statement but has shown her ignorance whether it was recorded by some other doctor in the hospital. The absence of any explanation for withholding said statement of deceased Babu Ram shows that the prosecution has not been fair to the appellant and the document Ex PS is a suspicious document. 26. Again, we do not find any substance in this submission and it is rejected. The police party consisting of ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 and others had met injured Babu Ram on the way when he was being taken to the hospital at Bilaspur, is not in dispute, The statement of Hardayal Singh PW 9 that the police party had met Babu Ram at Rishikesh cannot be believed, as in the endorsement made on Ex, PS, it was recorded that on reaching the place of occurrence i. e Dhararsani he found that injured Babu Ram was being taken to District Hospital, Bilaspur on a cot for treatment In the last part of his statement Babu Ram has also stated that he was being earned to Bilaspur when police met on the way and his statement was recorded. In view of this, the name of the place mentioned as Kakrughat at the end of this document and also the statements of Kamla Devi PW 1 and Prem Lal PW 14 that police had met them at Chhat where the statement of Babu Ram was recorded become immaterial and deserve to be ignored. Moreover, it has not come on record that Dhararsani and Chhat are two different villages. 27. So far the next point that Babu Ram had put his thumb-impression instead of signatures on statement Ex. PS is concerned, it is being blown out of proportion as well as context. It is not in dispute that deceased Babu Ram had suffered gun shot injuries on his left arm and near the navel at about 9.30 p m and he was being taken to hospital at Bilaspur on a cot when police had met him on the way and recorded his statement at 12.45 a. m. Even if he was literate having studied upto 6th class, he belonged to labour class. In this background he was not expected (o raise from the cot in order to sign his statement and the explanation given by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 after two years from the date of occurrence that he had obtained thumb impression of Babu Ram as he proclaimed himself to be illiterate, does not seem to be correct. The explanation given by Prem Lal PW 14 that Babu Ram could not put his signatures due to pain and uneasiness when he was asked to sign his statement by the police, seems to be correct, However, it is not in dispute that the thumb mark borne on the statement Ex. Ps is not of deceased Babu Ram or it was taken subsequently on a plain paper or for any such reason it does not inspire confidence. So far statement of Hardayal Singh PW 9 that statement of Babu Ram was not recorded is concerned, it does not inspire confidence, as he does not appear to be truthful witness for the reasons already mentioned hereinabove. 28. The last reason for terming the statement Ex. PS as suspicious that another statement of Babu Ram recorded by the doctors in the hospital as per the version of Kamla Devi PW 1 and Prem Lal PW-14 was Withheld is also without any substance. It has never been the case of the prosecution that another statement of deceased Babu Ram was recorded in the hospital by the doctors in the presence of police. It appears that Kamla Devi PW-1 and Prem Lal PW-14, who are village folk, have referred to the questioning of Babu Ram by the doctors for preparing hospital record as well as his medico legal certificate Ex, PK, which bears his thumb-impression, If such a statement was recorded, as alleged on behalf of the appellants, it could be got clarified from ASI Kaur Chand PW 16, which has not been done hi this view of the matter we hold that the statement Ex PS, which after the death of Babu Ram became his dying declaration, is not a suspicious document and has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 29. 29. Another point raised by Mr Chandel on behalf of the appellants is that the medical evidence has completely falsified the oral version given by the witnesses with regard to distance from which the gun was allegedly fired at In support of this submission site plan Ex. PX has been referred to show that Babu Ram was standing at point B and he was fired at from point E which is at a distance of 30 feet but Doctor Rama Singh PW 3 and Doctor N K Verma PW 4 have stated that injuries found on the person of deceased Babu Ram have been caused from a close range of 1 to 3 feet and their such opinion is based on Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Mr, Chandel has referred to the opinion of Doctor Rama Singh PW 3 that surrounding area of injury No. 2, a lacerated wound on the lower abdomen just below umbliceus towards right about 2 cm. x 1 cm. was charred black in colour and the skin was burnt, in order to show that the distance from which deceased Babu Ram was fired at was not more than 4 feet. 30. No doubt doctor can opine in respect of the injury in question, such as, its length, depth and width, colouring of the skin, its margins etc, etc. but he or she is not expert to satisfy the distance from which the gun has been fired at the deceased. It is well known that there are various factors determining the range, such as, kind and condition of weapon as well as cartridge used When a fire arm is discharged, after the bullet has left the muzzle some other ingredients also come out, such as, hot gases, smoke, unburnt and partially burnt propellant grains, small metallic chips torn out of the bullet when it rubs against the rifling of the barrel and the elements like lead, barium, antimony, mercury etc. liberated by the burning of the priming mixture. The different constituents of this ejecta travel to different distances and the effects produced by them from the basis of range estimation. Many a time in the case of distant shots when only abrasions are found around the wound, the medical experts have described these as burning/blackening. liberated by the burning of the priming mixture. The different constituents of this ejecta travel to different distances and the effects produced by them from the basis of range estimation. Many a time in the case of distant shots when only abrasions are found around the wound, the medical experts have described these as burning/blackening. In order to void contradiction in respect of range of fire between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, it is necessary that the opinion of firearm expert is obtained by sending him the firearm alongwith the cartridge and empty shell of used cartridge and the clothes of the deceased for examination, which has not been done in the present case. From the clothes the Ballistics Expert can have an idea about the number of entrance/exit holes, heights of various injuries, direction of firing etc. etc. to opine in respect of range of firing. Moreover, black colour of the skin around the wound and its appearance as charred/ burnt cannot be the only determining factor to hold that the range was less than 4 feet, as has been urged on behalf of the appellants with the help of statements of Doctor Rama Singh PW 3 and Doctor N. K, Verma PW 4. We have also noticed in respect of injury No. 1, the wound on the anterior aspect left forearm extending from forearm upper 3rd to wrist joint, it has not been stated that skin around this wound was black in colour and was charred or burnt. If the bullet had pierced the forearm before hitting the lower abdomen causing injury No. 2, the skin around the wound on the forearm should be more black in colour and also more charred/burnt. In the absence of any such observation in respect of injury No. 1, the opinion of Doctor Rama Singh PW 3 in respect of injury No 3 becomes doubtful. 31. In the absence of any such observation in respect of injury No. 1, the opinion of Doctor Rama Singh PW 3 in respect of injury No 3 becomes doubtful. 31. So far Doctor N. K. Verma PW 4 is concerned, his statement in the cross-examination that injuries found on the wrist of deceased Babu Ram were caused from a range of 1 to 3 feet is without any basis This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that as a result of gun shot injury from a close range the carbon particles emitted from the gun form blackened portion on the part of the body which is proximate to the weapon and on which the injury is caused but Doctor Rama Singh PW 3 who was first to examine injured Babu Ram has not given any such opinion in respect of injury on the forearm which was proximate to the gun. Therefore, the opinion of the Doctors in respect of range deserves to be ignored. 32. It is correct that in her cross-examination Kamla Devi PW 1 has stated that when they reached near Simble tree the appellants were at a distance of 13 paces ahead and in the site plan Ex. PX prepared by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 the distance between Point B where Babu Ram was standing and Point E where form he was fired at is 30 feet but this evidence is not of much help for, determining the range from which Babu Ram was fired at. Kamla Devi PW 1 has not specifically stated that distance from which the appellants had fired at her husband Babu Ram. The site plan Ex. PX was prepared on 2-7-1991 in the early hours when Kamla Devi PW 1 was away to hospital, who was the only eye-witness, who could tell about the distance from which Babu Ram was fired at, ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 has stated that lateron he had got the site plan verified from Kamla Devi PW 1 but this part of his statement does not inspire confidence. Therefore, this site plan which was prepared on approximation cannot be relied upon for determining the range. While explaining the distance shown in site plan Ex. Therefore, this site plan which was prepared on approximation cannot be relied upon for determining the range. While explaining the distance shown in site plan Ex. PX ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 has tried to explain that parapet is shown at Point E and the place where the blood was lying is shown at Point B and the distance between the two is 30 feet. He has further stated that during investigation it came to light that deceased Babu Ram was fired at from a distance of 15 feet and after receiving the injuries he ran away and fell at a distance of another 15 feet, where his blood was found. However, there is no contradiction to his statement with regard to distance from which the shot was fired, of which the appellants can take any benefit. 33. Another point raised by Mr, Chandel is that recovery of empty cartridge from the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PC is most improbable for the reason that empty cartridge is not automatically ejected from 12 bore gun Ex P-6 unless it is brought to unloading position for the purpose of re-loading, which is not the prosecution case, Hardayal Singh PW 9, one of the witnesses of Ex PC, has denied the seizure of any empty cartridge at the spot It is not proved that after seizure it remained in the safe custody by depositing it in police Malkhana. The seal affixed on the parcel containing empty cartridge was retained by the Investigating Officer, as Hardayal Singh PW 9 has denied that any such seal was handed over to him. Memo Ex, PC bears F. I. R. number, date and sections of law, which shows that it was prepared lateron and not at the spot, after registration of the F. I R 34. Recovery of empty cartridge was made vide memo Ex. PC in the presence of Mast Ram PW 2 and Hardayal Singh PW 9 Mast Ram PW 2 has proved the recovery of empty cartridge by identifying his signatures on Memo Ex, PC, whereas, Hardayal Singh PW 9 has denied that any such recovery was made in his presence as well as his signatures on Ex. PC. PC in the presence of Mast Ram PW 2 and Hardayal Singh PW 9 Mast Ram PW 2 has proved the recovery of empty cartridge by identifying his signatures on Memo Ex, PC, whereas, Hardayal Singh PW 9 has denied that any such recovery was made in his presence as well as his signatures on Ex. PC. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, no weightage is to be attached to the statement of this witness, as apparently he is not speaking the truth in order to help the appellants. He has admitted the other two recoveries made at the same time by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 from the place of occurrence and also his signatures on recovery memos Ex, PD and PE Having compared these signatures with his signatures on Ex. PC it can safely be held that he had also signed this recovery memo as witness to the recovery of the empty cartridge. 35. The safe custody of empty cartridge as well as other case property is proved by the statements of Sham Lal PW 10, Bhagwant Singh PW 11 and Arjun Singh PW 12 Bhagwant Singh PW 11 has stated that four sealed parcels deposited with him by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 besides two sealed parcels received from ASI Birbal Ram PW 15, were kept in Malkhana in safe custody and further handed over to Arjun Singh PW 12, who had sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla through Constable Harish Kumar on 27-7-1991. In the absence of any cross-examination of these witnesses or any objection taken on behalf of the appellants that the parcels of empty cartridge and other case properties were not kept in safe custody and were exposed to tampering, this argument raised on their behalf before this Court deserves to be rejected. It is correct that in the absence of any evidence of reloading of 12 bore gun used in the commission of the crime, in the normal course, empty cartridge was not likely to be found on the place of occurrence but the factum of recovery duly proved by Mast Ram PW 2 and ASI Kaur Chand PW 16 cannot be ignored for this reason, as it is not unnatural for a person to eject the used cartridge immediately to prepare himself for firing for the second time. 36. 36. Further, in the facts and circumstances of this case, mentioning of F. I. R. Number, date and sections of law on the memos prepared immediately on reaching the spot is not material, as it is the normal practice to keep these columns blank and fill them tip lateron or these might be intimated to the Investigating Officer during the course of recovery. This argument of Mr Chandel loses importance in view of recovery of gun and unused cartridges Ex, P-6 to P 9 vide recovery memos Ex. PF and PG which are proved by Mast Ram PW 2, in whose presence these recoveries were made. These documents also bear the signatures of appellant Jagdish Kumar. Above all, though he has denied these recoveries in answer to question No. 19, yet has stated that, Police took my licence in possession with gun and cartridges". 37. One more submission made by Mr. Chandel is that the statement of Babu Ram in Ex, PS and the statement of Kamla Devi PW 1 that appellant Jagdish Kumar had fired at Babu Ram at the instance of appellant Jit Ram, does not inspire confidence, as it is contradictory to the version given by Kamla Devi PW 1 in her application Ex DA to the Deputy Commissioner, This application was written by Petition Writer Brij Mohan DW 1 on 31-12-1991 at the instance of Kamla Devi PW-1 to complain against appellant Jit Ram that after having been released on bail from the High Court, he had started threatening her. The statement of this witness that Kamla Devi was accompanied by her Devar when she had come to him for witting this application, does not inspire confidence, as he would not have remembered this fact after about three years, when his statement was recorded on 19-10-1994, more so, when he did not know Kamla Devi and her Devar earlier and he must be writing number of petitions in a day. Similarly, his further statement that he wrote the application in the language of Kamla Devi and not in his own language is apparently false, as the application contains words of Urdu, such as, Saila, Fariquesani etc. Similarly, his further statement that he wrote the application in the language of Kamla Devi and not in his own language is apparently false, as the application contains words of Urdu, such as, Saila, Fariquesani etc. etc, and the normal practice is that after ascertaining the facts the petition writers draft the petitions in their own language and some sort of discrepancy is bound to creep in, as it has happened in the present case but it deserves to be ignored in view of the consistent statement of Kamla Devi PW I and dying declaration of Babu Ram Ex PS that it was appellant Jagdish Kumar who had fired at Babu Ram at the instance of appellant Jit Ram and this discrepancy is of no consequence, 38. Mr. Chandel has also pointed out that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PU is not worth reliance, as sealed parcels of case property had not reached there intact. In support of his submission he has pointed out that as stated in memo Ex. PG, six seals bearing impression R’ were affixed on the sealed parcel of unused cartridges but only three seals bearing impression ‘R’ were found on the said parcel, as stated in the report Ex PU, He has also stated that the seals affixed on the parcels of recovered articles were not produced by Mast Ram PW 2 and Hardayal Singh PW 9 to whom these were allegedly handed over by ASI Kaur Chand PW 16. Again, in the facts and circumstances on record these minor discrepancies are not enough to reject the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PU. We have relied upon the recovery of empty cartridge marked S-l, which was found to have been fired with 12 bore gun marked as B-1 and could not have been fired from some other gun as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex . PU, which is per se admissible under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 39. PU, which is per se admissible under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 39. Another minor point raised by Mr, Chandel is that blood stained clothes of Kamla Devi PW 1 were not sent to the Chemical Examiner though these were seized as per her version, This lapse on the part of the prosecution is not such to create a dent in its case, as it is not in dispute that Babu Ram after receiving injuries on his forearm and below navel, had started bleeding profusely and his wife Kamla Devi PW 1 had given him support, as a result of which her clothes had also become blood stained. Similarly, the another minor point that F. I. R., though recorded at 3 09 a. m. was sent to Ilaqua Magistrate at 9.30 a m, and received by him lateron during the course of the day, is not of much consequence, as it is based on the statement of deceased Babu Ram which is proved to have been recorded at 12.30 a. m. No other material point is raised on behalf of the appellants 40. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. Appeal dismissed.